The author, the vice predisent of marketing at Dura Sock, argues in the memo that the company can increase their profits by discontinuing their Endure manufacturing process, which makes sure that socks are durable enough to last for at least two years. Stated in that way, the argument fails to consider several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. To justify this argument, the author reasons that the recent customer survey revealed that they think Dura Sock is wasting money spending on this more expensive manufacturing process. However, the author needs to provide further substantive evidence in order to evaluate the argument.
Firstly, the author readily assumes that the reason behind new purchase of socks by Dura Sock's average customer every three months is the lack of durability. This is merely an assumption made without a solid ground. For example, the author needs to provide the reaon behind this new purchase. Is it because new colors or styles come out every two to three months? Or do the customers lose their socks and that is the reason behind their purchase?
Furhtermore, the author states that Dura Socks's new customer survey has revealed that the customers from their largest market values their brand because of the style factor and the range of colors available for their socks. Thus concluding that the customers do not value their superior manufacturing process is vague and unsupported. For instance, if the owner of a condo is asked about the best property of that condo, the owner will probably state either a furniture or some visual element of the condo, because humans are a visual creature. Simillarly, the author needs to provide information regarding whether the customers have taken the durability of the socks as an obvious property or not.
Finally, the author concludes that discontinuing the Endure manufacturing process is the best option as it will increase profit of the company. Even if the author's claim that the customers do not want hte durability of their socks is agreed with, careful scrutiny of the author's conclusion raises some skeptical doubts. The author does not provide information if there needs to be a massive overhaul in the mechanism of manufacturing to go back to the regular method of manufacturing. For example, what will be the cost of establishing this new manufacturing method? Will it need new machinery, or are the old machinery suitable enough? Does the workers need new training? Without the answer to these question, the reader wis left with an assumption that the claim made by the author is more of a wishful thinking than substantative evidence.
In conclusion, the author's argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author needs to provide evidence, probably by the way of a detailed survey of the customers, this time asking the proper questions.
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 474 350
No. of Characters: 2355 1500
No. of Different Words: 216 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.666 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.968 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.631 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 180 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 126 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 82 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.545 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.694 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.591 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.324 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.512 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.073 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 50, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...the author concludes that discontinuing the Endure manufacturing process is the best optio...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 272, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...is agreed with, careful scrutiny of the authors conclusion raises some skeptical doubts...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ntative evidence. In conclusion, the authors argument is unpersuasive as it stands. ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, however, if, regarding, so, thus, at least, for example, for instance, in conclusion, by the way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 28.8173652695 128% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2410.0 2260.96107784 107% => OK
No of words: 474.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08438818565 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66599839874 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71920223243 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 230.0 204.123752495 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.485232067511 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 753.3 705.55239521 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.2053929511 57.8364921388 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.545454545 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5454545455 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 5.70786347227 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.132441359156 0.218282227539 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0409941979948 0.0743258471296 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0470392565616 0.0701772020484 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.077531089273 0.128457276422 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0622005140786 0.0628817314937 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.61 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 98.500998004 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.